Guys,
I just watched this again tonite. I watched it from a different point of view. As far as I'm concerned, Al Pacino is the best American actor ever to grace the 'big' screen. Francis Ford Coppola is the best director to ever live. The Cinema is amazing, the story and screenplay(attributed to Mario Puzo), is pure genious. I don't have much more to say....but the movie just AMAZES me every time I see it. Man, what a movie...what a plot!
-K
Yeah, it was good, but personally I’ve always preferred the first Godfather. Don’t know why really, I can’t really think of anything I didn’t like about Part II. Maybe I just miss Sonny.
Since I have the DVD Godfather Collection and don’t have to make the choice of which of the three is really THE best, I feel the whole series is the best movie experience. But if I had to toss all but one of the original features, I’d keep 2. By a nose.
I’m the same way. There’s nothing wrong with 2, I just like 1 a little more.
I’m with Crunchy. Hardly any flaws in either of them but if I could take just one to a desert island (with a DVD player) I’d take GF I. I guess the character of Vito Corleone makes the difference for me.
[hijack]
These two musicians, a trumpet player and a drummer, had gone back to the pad they shared after doing a record with a small band. After supper they started watching TV and the drummer said, “Hey, man, I’m going down to the studio and listen to our tape.”
“Cool, man. I’ll hang here.”
An hour later the drummer comes back. “How was it?” asks the trumpet man. “Okay, but just a little too much trumpet.”
Another hour goes by and the trumpet player says, “Hey, man, I’m going down to the studio to listen to our tape.”
“Cool, man. I’ll hang here.”
An hour later the trumpet player comes back. “How was it?” asks the drummer. “Okay, but just a little too much drums.”
[/hijack]
I also think Godfather 2 is the best American movie ever made. With Godfather I close behind. Together, they are the greatest thing the American cinema has produced.
I like GF2 better, especially because of the young Vito Corleone as immigrant scenes. GF1 was awfully close though. And GF3 could have been much better with some player changes and more focus on Michaels replacement. Then again, the whole trilogy was primarily about Michael Corleone, so it makes sense that it ends with him.
The musical score of GF 1 & 2 is brilliant. There is a classic, mournful quality which supports the story and gives it an epic feel. I see 1 & 2 as one production, but I agree that 2 is the stronger half.
In my world, Godfather III does not exist. I had a bad dream about it once and I have no desire to revisit that experience.
“the older Vito Corleone”, I meant to say.
Has anybody seen the miniseries version in which it’s shot in chronological order? (It starts out with ‘boy Vito’, goes through the DeNiro years, then into the Brando years, then just the Michael segments of GF2.) I think both GF1 and GF2 were truly great and wonderful movies, but strangely the story doesn’t work when shown that way.
I did see that on TV and (perhaps) later on VHS as “The Godfather Saga” (I believe it was). That approach stressed the history component of the two movies.
I analyse the appeal of the two (I and II) this way. “I” was first and presented an entirely different slant on “crime drama” and “gangster movie” with the attention to the period and the family. The violent scenes were believable. The suspense and intrigue were finely crafted. The acting was superb in all characters, with perhaps Luca Brasi the one to ignore in that regard.
“II” was an exploration in the “sins of the father” concept, with further exploration of the family versus business notion. The interplay of younger Vito and older Michael (with I as the reference point – kind of a fulcrum) and the techniques that both applied let the viewer speculate on the manifold reasons such behavior comes into being.
In “I” I had trouble staying interested in the Sicily section. It seemed too long to be away from New York.
In “II” the Sicily section was better. The peculiarities of some of the minor characters never got explained or developed. No big deal, but a slight downside for II.
I still feel that the breadth of scope of “II” gives it the edge, although I did miss Brando in it.
One and Two are two of the finest movies ever made. I’ve tried to watch Three a couple times and couldn’t do it. It never ceases to amaze me that it’s made by the same people. It’s not just mediocre; it’s completely unwatchable.
Between One and Two, I prefer One, but really just because I saw it first. Two is such an excellent movie even standing by itself.
My partner is writing his Film Studies MA on The Godfather and as a consequence I have watched both films many, many times. They are without a doubt my favourite films of all time. And I still don’t know which one is my favourite. The minute I lean toward II, I think “But it hasn’t got Marlon Brando!”, but the minute I lean towards I, I think “But it hasn’t got DeNiro!”
I love them both equally.
For me, the fundamental difference that makes 1 much better is that there is a compelling story arc: the corruption of Michael. Everything channels back to him and his growing investment in the Family (an emotional involvement that was always there, even if he’d be quick to deny it at the beginning of the film). He starts as a “dispassionate” observer and slowly finds that by selling his soul, he finds his true calling.
The second has no such arc. Michael turning Bad to Worse is not the same as turning from Neutral to Bad. The Vito flashbacks are the strongest because of the sense of period and the flavor of immigrant America at the time. The rest of 2 is obsessed with power plays and political grabs, and though there are some exquisite character moments (particularly with Fredo & Roth), the film seems to wallow (almost revel) in Michael’s corruption, without giving us any more insight into him at the end than we know (or at least reasonably assume) at the beginning. It is more epic in scope only in that there are more locations and characters to keep track of, but the central drama, IMHO, is inert–the true tragedies are on the margins. I think the movie also can’t help but indulge in seeing Michael as some sort of Tragic Hero, which in turn partially romantacizes a character who has been reduced to a cold-blooded thug. The things that made Michael the most interesting in 1 are gone when 2 starts, making him a less engaging protagonist.
I think the original Godfather is an American classic, but the sequel (though fine as filmmaking) is overrated, and nowhere nearly as good as Chinatown or The Conversation from the same year.
When I was a little kid, I would use superlatives such as “best ever…” and “worst ever…” But then, I was a little kid.
“I” is just plain better. Lot’s of key things stuffed into almost every scene. Very tightly made. In “II”, the whole young Vito story arc just drags. In fact, the extra material in “Saga” livens that part up quite a bit. How good can it be when cutting room floor material makes it better?
Archiveguy:
I disagree. Both movies contain a continuation of the same arc, but II widens the scope.
In Godfather I, the story arc was about the corruption of Michael’s ideals in service to the family. But Godfather II is about the loss of Michael’s soul. At the start of II, Michael was a person who had committed brutal acts, but who saw himself as still fundamentally good. The violence he committed was against those who would kill his own family, and he still had illusions of going legitimate. He still had illusions that what he was doing was for his family.
But the real story arc in Godfather II is about the corrupting effects of power. Michael turns into a monster who kills his own brother and alienates his wife and children. Politicians are corrupted. The story arc of the young Vito shows how power and money create what he became. Notice that the young Vito was still motivated by justice and doign the right thing at the beginning, and slowly became corrupted by money.
Michael’s story is one long arc though both movies - A powerful family and loyalty causes a young man to betray his values. He rises to a position of power, and its corrupting influence causes him to become vicious and brutal. In the end, he winds up rich, powerful, and utterly destroyed.
Hear, Hear!!! Someone has a CLUE!!!
I also think that Godfather 2 is the better film and one of the greatest films ever made. One point of superiority is its greater scope in place and time: Sicily, early 20th century America, Cuba: all of them brilliantly handled. This translates into a film with richer historical and political themes than the first one: it is about the competing pulls of family and tribe on the one hand and a broader concept of citizenship on the other. I think a key scene is the flashback at the end when Sonny says that only a fool would fight in the war. Michael disagrees and defies his family and fights for his country. Ultimately though the values of tribe and family , a way of life we see in the historical scenes in Sicily and immigrant America, win. However in the process Michael destroys his own family and kills his brother: quite an irony.